Yoma 2B

ואימא, ״צוה״ [״צוה״] דיום הכפורים, דכתיב: ״ויעש כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה״? דנין ״צוה״ דלפני עשיה מ״צוה״ דלפני עשיה, ואין דנין ״צוה״ דלאחר עשיה מ״צוה״ דלפני עשיה.

The Talmud asks: And say that there is indeed a verbal analogy; however, it is not between the red heifer and the inauguration of the priests, but between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded in the context of Yom Kippur, as it is written: “And this will be an everlasting statute for you, to atone for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year; and he did as YHWH commanded Moses” (Leviticus 16:34). In that case, only the sequestering prior to Yom Kippur can be derived. The Talmud rejects this, as a verbal analogy is derived only between functionally similar phrases. One derives commanded that is stated before performance, as in the portion of the heifer, from commanded that is stated before performance in the portion of the inauguration; and one does not derive commanded that is stated after performance in the portion of Yom Kippur from commanded that is stated before performance.

ואימא ״צוה״ דקרבנות, דכתיב: ״ביום צותו את בני ישראל״? דנין ״צוה״ מ״צוה״ ואין דנין ״צותו״ מ״צוה״.

Again the Talmud asks: And say that there is a verbal analogy between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded with regard to offerings, as it is written: “On the day that He commanded [tzavoto] the children of Israel to sacrifice their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38). The result would be that any priest sacrificing a communal offering would require sequestering for 7 days. The Talmud rejects this: One derives the term commanded from the identical term commanded, and one does not derive the term that he commanded [tzavoto] from the term commanded [tziva].